I don't know what if anything should be done about the amendment. Since we can not have an intelligent discussion without demonizing anyone who disagrees with us, we cannot possibly come up with a coherent much less intelligent answer.

But I do know this. Doing it in response to a single horrifying incident is wrong. Making any decision out of fear is unAmerican. Look at the Patriot act, a moment of panic and fear, and now we cannot get any of those rights back.

Gun violence, and mass violence is a horror. Please please think a moment, take a breath, maybe hear why someone else disagrees with you. Only then can we figure this out and protect ourselves, AND our rights.

BraveNewCheneyWorld:HotWingConspiracy: BraveNewCheneyWorld: HotWingConspiracy: BraveNewCheneyWorld: When the Boston bombing proved that gun control would be ineffective against crazies,

Going for the high score for dumbest thing said earliest in the day, I see.

Oh look, It's you, doing that "conveniently avoiding the point, and throwing out insults in their place" strategy.

Face it, many of us have been saying that crazy people would just make bombs to kill people if it served their purposes, your side then said that "bombs are too hard to make".. and you just got proven completely wrong.

Yeah that never happened.

It never happened? Well, here's a thread with someone addressing the problems with bombs instead of guns. Fyi, you were in that thread, so yet again, you've been caught lying.

No I haven't. I simply don't accept some internet dullard's hamfisted attempt to group me with strangers. BTW, what kind of loser catalogs fark threads?

HotWingConspiracy: How well did your guns do protecting those people?

Yeah, I'm pretty sure nobody claimed that a gun can save you when you're standing next to an explosion. Is this really what your arguments have become?

You're telling me that guns don't keep you safe from crazy people? That's going to break a lot of hearts.

MisterRonbo:When it does, choice will become stark: Either everyone gets any weapon at all, or you get rid of the 2nd and they get none. It'll be pretty much impossible to do anything in between. The only way to have *any* gun control will be by strictly controlling gunpowder and it's chemical inputs. Still won't be perfect, but with heavy prison terms for having any gun, it could work to a practical extent.

I think the gun's time is actually drawing to a close.

As technology gets better and we become more expert at storing and releasing energy, weapons like lasers and coil guns will become more of a thing (especially when 3d printing makes them easier to manufacture and they have no dependence on explosives or quality metal work).By the time you've got a consumer model 3d printer that can do the work, you'll have dozens of new ways for humans to harm each other that are not gunpowder dependant.

It will be beyond the domain of government to prevent people from owning weapons by the old method. We will have to choose between punishing offenders after the fact or preemptively barring knowledge and technology from open public access, because you won't have the option to simply register weapons.

We will have to decide if our fellow humans are citizens with rights or serfs to be ruled.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure nobody claimed that a gun can save you when you're standing next to an explosion. Is this really what your arguments have become?

What you got out of it..

You're telling me that guns don't keep you safe from crazy people? That's going to break a lot of hearts.

You might want to attend those reading classes you've been skipping. No, nobody claimed a gun is a magical shield that keeps you from any and all injury, we claim that they give you a chance to stay alive in many situations, however.

AdolfOliverPanties:I think it should be amended, updated for the times. I would love to see private gun ownership ended, as I am virulently anti-gun, but I know that will never happen. So amend it (obviously its been done before,) with updates about assault rifles, automatic weapons, high capacity clips and magazines, armor piercing bullets...basically anything that was designed for military or law-enforcement use that goes beyond your basic home protection handgun or hunting rifle/shotgun.

Sadly, even this is farking impossible. We can't even get background checks on nutbags because of the farking asshole NRA, even though over 90% of Americans want them.

If that were actually true and not a made up number it would have passed with ease.

Could undermine his fledgling talk sports show. Plenty of guys who would have listened to slam man because he is a reasonably good host, will tune out because they disagree with his politics. That is another way Jim Rome was, and always will be, better - he left his politics at the doorstep when he walked into the studio.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure nobody claimed that a gun can save you when you're standing next to an explosion. Is this really what your arguments have become?

What you got out of it..

You're telling me that guns don't keep you safe from crazy people? That's going to break a lot of hearts.

You might want to attend those reading classes you've been skipping. No, nobody claimed a gun is a magical shield that keeps you from any and all injury, we claim that they give you a chance to stay alive in many situations, however.

But statiscally it's been proven that the opposite is true* ... Your gut feelings aside.

*Now isn't that fascinating .. I just tried to google a citation to back up the fact (that I've read many times in a variety of online and print publications) that people are in more danger in a home with guns than without and what were 6 of the top 10 results? Gun control "debunking" sites.

How strange that Google would produce opposite results to what I searched for .. It's almost like someone has spent a shiat-ton of money SEOing that black is white.

Really? You mean bomb goes off in Boston a week ago. Bomb goes off in Oklahoma City and that percentage changes a bit, huh? Don't ever think a bomb is less destructive than a bullet, that is really bad.

jaybeezey:AdolfOliverPanties: I think it should be amended, updated for the times. I would love to see private gun ownership ended, as I am virulently anti-gun, but I know that will never happen. So amend it (obviously its been done before,) with updates about assault rifles, automatic weapons, high capacity clips and magazines, armor piercing bullets...basically anything that was designed for military or law-enforcement use that goes beyond your basic home protection handgun or hunting rifle/shotgun.

Sadly, even this is farking impossible. We can't even get background checks on nutbags because of the farking asshole NRA, even though over 90% of Americans want them.

If that were actually true and not a made up number it would have passed with ease.

The support for gun control may be widespread, but it's shallow compared to things like the economy (24%), unemployment (18%), federal budget deficit (11%), and general dissatisfaction with government (16%).

Opposition to gun control may be a bit narrower, but it's *MUCH* deeper, and much more grass-roots. That's how the NRA can influence the process: It's not a mere matter of money. Mayor Bloomberg's gun control group, MAIG, has spent just as much money as the NRA in the last election, but the NRA can deliver (or deny) something that MAIG can't: grassroots activism and votes, and that, in the end, is all politicians really care about.

way south:In the aftermath of politicians voting against something that we've been told 90% of people wanted, you'd place your faith in that same body to correct its own mistakes or follow the demands of the majority?

Only about 3 or 4 percent of that 90 percent would actually vote against a candidate for not supporting background checks, which again is a problem among the voting populace, not within the system. Just because 90 percent of people give a certain answer to a poll doesn't mean they put one shred of thought into the question when they're not being asked about it. This is a problem of depth vs. breadth that comes up a lot in studies of polling and policy.

It's the gun owners who don't want to see any reform passed that actually take the time to call their congressmen, get out on the streets in protest and get the (lack of) policy they want as a result.

I'm not trying to white knight for politicians or suggest that our system isn't broken, but as long as so many of our policy decisions come down to regular people getting out and casting ballots, we really have no excuse beyond the rampant ignorance and anti-intellectualism that plagues American culture.

dittybopper:jaybeezey: AdolfOliverPanties: I think it should be amended, updated for the times. I would love to see private gun ownership ended, as I am virulently anti-gun, but I know that will never happen. So amend it (obviously its been done before,) with updates about assault rifles, automatic weapons, high capacity clips and magazines, armor piercing bullets...basically anything that was designed for military or law-enforcement use that goes beyond your basic home protection handgun or hunting rifle/shotgun.

Sadly, even this is farking impossible. We can't even get background checks on nutbags because of the farking asshole NRA, even though over 90% of Americans want them.

If that were actually true and not a made up number it would have passed with ease.

As of last week, only 4% of Americans thing gun control is the most important problem facing America. Even after Sandy Hook, it never got higher than 6%.

The support for gun control may be widespread, but it's shallow compared to things like the economy (24%), unemployment (18%), federal budget deficit (11%), and general dissatisfaction with government (16%).

Opposition to gun control may be a bit narrower, but it's *MUCH* deeper, and much more grass-roots. That's how the NRA can influence the process: It's not a mere matter of money. Mayor Bloomberg's gun control group, MAIG, has spent just as much money as the NRA in the last election, but the NRA can deliver (or deny) something that MAIG can't: grassroots activism and votes, and that, in the end, is all politicians really care about.

AdolfOliverPanties:I think it should be amended, updated for the times. I would love to see private gun ownership ended, as I am virulently anti-gun,

I am anti-religion, but I don't want to see the first amendment changed to get rid of the "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"to stop other people from worshiping whatever make believe monster they want.

Mr. Cat Poop:AdolfOliverPanties: I think it should be amended, updated for the times. I would love to see private gun ownership ended, as I am virulently anti-gun,

I am anti-religion, but I don't want to see the first amendment changed to get rid of the "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"to stop other people from worshiping whatever make believe monster they want.

Because of course gun ownership and freedom of expression are equally important. You can't have a democracy or freedom without both.

The Name:Mr. Cat Poop: AdolfOliverPanties: I think it should be amended, updated for the times. I would love to see private gun ownership ended, as I am virulently anti-gun,

I am anti-religion, but I don't want to see the first amendment changed to get rid of the "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"to stop other people from worshiping whatever make believe monster they want.

Because of course gun ownership and freedom of expression are equally important. You can't have a democracy or freedom without both.

/This is what gun nuts actually believe.

Just for grins, name one civilization that disarmed the populace then brought democracy?

Mrfusticle:*Now isn't that fascinating .. I just tried to google a citation to back up the fact (that I've read many times in a variety of online and print publications) that people are in more danger in a home with guns than without and what were 6 of the top 10 results? Gun control "debunking" sites.

How strange that Google would produce opposite results to what I searched for .. It's almost like someone has spent a shiat-ton of money SEOing that black is white.

BraveNewCheneyWorld:Mrfusticle: But statiscally it's been proven that the opposite is true* ... Your gut feelings aside.

12,000 gun deaths vs 80,000 alcohol deaths. You're lying.

Mrfusticle: *Now isn't that fascinating .. I just tried to google a citation to back up the fact (that I've read many times in a variety of online and print publications) that people are in more danger in a home with guns than without and what were 6 of the top 10 results? Gun control "debunking" sites.

How strange that Google would produce opposite results to what I searched for .. It's almost like someone has spent a shiat-ton of money SEOing that black is white.

You sound paranoid.

Hence my tin-foil joke that you didn't quote, Buckaroo.

Like I said, I don't live over there so you can shoot as many kids in the face as you like.. I was just trying to give a indication of the amused/revolted face most of us in the rest of the world* have with your hair-splitting bollocks on this subject.

/yes, I know y'all don't give two shiats what we think//stop killing brown people if you don't care then

StoPPeRmobile:The Name: Mr. Cat Poop: AdolfOliverPanties: I think it should be amended, updated for the times. I would love to see private gun ownership ended, as I am virulently anti-gun,

I am anti-religion, but I don't want to see the first amendment changed to get rid of the "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"to stop other people from worshiping whatever make believe monster they want.

Because of course gun ownership and freedom of expression are equally important. You can't have a democracy or freedom without both.

/This is what gun nuts actually believe.

Just for grins, name one civilization that disarmed the populace then brought democracy?

History isn't a goddamn moebius strip.

And in any case, I can name plenty that had democracy and then managed to "disarm" the populace without falling into tyranny -pretty much all of Western Europe, for example.

The Name:Because of course gun ownership and freedom of expression are equally important. You can't have a democracy or freedom without both.

/This is what gun nuts actually believe.

So some rights are more important than others? I disagree.Expression and self-defense are both fundamental human rights, guy.

MrFusticle:*Now isn't that fascinating .. I just tried to google a citation to back up the fact (that I've read many times in a variety of online and print publications) that people are in more danger in a home with guns than without and what were 6 of the top 10 results? Gun control "debunking" sites.

How strange that Google would produce opposite results to what I searched for .. It's almost like someone has spent a shiat-ton of money SEOing that black is white.

You're talking Kellerman stats. Lets just check wikipedia here. You can use this as a launchpad to find deeper analysis and critique by other researches. I won't handhold you through it.I'll quote a bit.

"Several academic papers have been published severely questioning Kellerman's methodology, selective capture of data, and refusal to provide raw data from his gun-risk studies so as to substantiate his methods and result validity. While Kellerman has backed away from his previous statement that people are "43 times more likely" to be murdered in their own home if they own and keep a gun in their home, he still proposes that the risk is 2.7 times higher. The critiques included Henry E. Schaffer, J. Neil Schuman, and criminologists Gary Kleck, Don Kates, and others."

I'm a scientist, and whenever somebody refuses to release methodology and data it fires up all of my B.S. alarms.

rickythepenguin:utsagrad123: As the winner of his Twitter Hat Trick contest today, I'm really getting a kick

whoa. you really are the THT.

I doff my hat, sir. I have never been read even once. I've called in a few times (when the show started and it was easy to get on) but haven't been read yet.

Lol yeah. It's really random sometimes. Sometimes I send it some really funny stuff and it never gets read. Other times I send in half assed jokes and they get read. There's no real rhyme or reason to it... Kinda like getting headlines greenlit on Fark.

Yes, it does. (Do you have some arguments, or is this going to be just a 'yes huh!' 'no way!' back and forth until some hair is pulled?)

If the all-holy Founding Fathers had intended the second amendment to be a guarantee of persons' ability to ensure their personal protection, and not a provision ensuring states' abilities to raise militias, then they would have farking said so. You can't stretch the semiotics of the constitution to get whatever the hell you want out of it.

Also, most of the other amendments are reactions to restrictions on liberties that had been placed on the colonies by England, the third amendment being the most obvious example. Did King George ever pass a decree that people couldn't protect themselves when attacked by a mugger or rapist? Was government's forcing people to let criminals do whatever they want to them a serious concern in the eighteenth century? Indeed, has that ever been a concern anywhere?

This "self-protection" argument about the second amendment is an anachronism. It has deeper roots in late twentieth century crime wave panic and anti-government paranoia than it does in the Enlightenment.

Woah, I'm sorry, you must be from some other reality where America is a crazy theocracy with the Founding Fathers as Saints or Prophets. Please go back and stay away.

Also, most of the other amendments are reactions to restrictions on liberties that had been placed on the colonies by England, the third amendment being the most obvious example. Did King George ever pass a decree that people couldn't protect themselves

The British monarchy was sort of obsessed with seizing arms and obtaining a complete monopoly on force, so yes.

The Name:StoPPeRmobile: The Name: Mr. Cat Poop: AdolfOliverPanties: I think it should be amended, updated for the times. I would love to see private gun ownership ended, as I am virulently anti-gun,

I am anti-religion, but I don't want to see the first amendment changed to get rid of the "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"to stop other people from worshiping whatever make believe monster they want.

Because of course gun ownership and freedom of expression are equally important. You can't have a democracy or freedom without both.

/This is what gun nuts actually believe.

Just for grins, name one civilization that disarmed the populace then brought democracy?

History isn't a goddamn moebius strip.

And in any case, I can name plenty that had democracy and then managed to "disarm" the populace without falling into tyranny -pretty much all of Western Europe, for example.

The Name:Mr. Cat Poop: AdolfOliverPanties: I think it should be amended, updated for the times. I would love to see private gun ownership ended, as I am virulently anti-gun,

I am anti-religion, but I don't want to see the first amendment changed to get rid of the "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"to stop other people from worshiping whatever make believe monster they want.

Because of course gun ownership and freedom of expression are equally important. You can't have a democracy or freedom without both.

/This is what gun nuts actually believe.

My point is that if you start carving up the second amendment, then the first might be next. And instead of removing the "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" I'm afraid the retarded Christian right wing nutjobs will get enough power to remove the "shall make no law establishing" part. I don't want to live in a theocracy. And my guns are locked up in a safe at home. I don't have a problem with background checks and training, I do have a problem with disarming citizens because some people wet their pants whenever someone dies from violence. It certainly wasn't guns that killed and maimed the people in Boston. Are we gonna start taking away pressure cookers now?

Mr. Cat Poop:The Name: Mr. Cat Poop: AdolfOliverPanties: I think it should be amended, updated for the times. I would love to see private gun ownership ended, as I am virulently anti-gun,

I am anti-religion, but I don't want to see the first amendment changed to get rid of the "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"to stop other people from worshiping whatever make believe monster they want.

Because of course gun ownership and freedom of expression are equally important. You can't have a democracy or freedom without both.

/This is what gun nuts actually believe.

My point is that if you start carving up the second amendment, then the first might be next. And instead of removing the "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" I'm afraid the retarded Christian right wing nutjobs will get enough power to remove the "shall make no law establishing" part. I don't want to live in a theocracy. And my guns are locked up in a safe at home. I don't have a problem with background checks and training, I do have a problem with disarming citizens because some people wet their pants whenever someone dies from violence. It certainly wasn't guns that killed and maimed the people in Boston. Are we gonna start taking away pressure cookers now?

Due process is no longer needed in out technologically-advanced, modern society. It only hinders Law Enforcement. If all people were forced to obey then there would be no need for rights. We would all be safe.

AdolfOliverPanties:I think it should be amended, updated for the times. I would love to see private gun ownership ended, as I am virulently anti-gun, but I know that will never happen. So amend it (obviously its been done before,) with updates about assault rifles, automatic weapons, high capacity clips and magazines, armor piercing bullets...basically anything that was designed for military or law-enforcement use that goes beyond your basic home protection handgun or hunting rifle/shotgun.

Sadly, even this is farking impossible. We can't even get background checks on nutbags because of the farking asshole NRA, even though over 90% of Americans want them.

I hope Wayne LaPierre is killed with a gun. Not soon; I hope he lives a normal lifespan. But I hope that is the way his life ends; violently, with him shiatting himself in fear.

Oh, and major props for the Nikki Cox shotgun to the face joke upthread a ways. LOL

You sir need to read the current laws and stop listening to idiots on TV.

The Gun control act of 1968 requires any person that makes a living selling firearms or ammunition to have an FFL. They require mail order (includes internet) sales to go through an FFL (The brady bill requires all firearms purchases through an FFL pass a background check even ones at gun shows). Bullets designed to be armor piercing are not for sale to the general public. The machine gun registery was closed in 1986 - no new machineguns can be sold to civilians. The ones made before 1986 have shot up in value to prices that are beyond the reach of almost anyone other than your rich uncle. (15000+ for any rifle caliber machinegun). Not to mention the fact you have to have a local DA, Police Chief, or Sherrif sign off on the paperwork, send fingerprints and photos, pay 200 extra, AND wait 6mo to a year for atf to approve the transfer.

On assault rifles -

Google ruger mini14 ranch rifle.

Google AR-15

Google Barret 50cal

Google M4

One of those is an assault rifle - the other three are semiauto rifles. the semi means one pull of the trigger fires a round and loads the next but does not fire it even if the trigger is held down. An Assault Rifle can fire full auto - meaning you can hold the trigger down and as long as there are bullets it will fire.

As for converting a semi auto to a full auto the ATF gives a ruling on EVERY weapon produced by an FFL- They test for violations of the law and an easily coverted semi to full auto breaks the law.

As it sits the ONLY area where our "firearms laws" fall down is the fact that law enforcement can't go and find out if someone has ever been treated for a mental disorder.

Patient healthcare data is protected by several laws, but the most well known are Hipaa and the privacy act of 1974. They cover who can and can't look at medical records and the penalties associated with sharing that information.

So you're complaint is not with gun control laws it's with patient privacy laws and any person who's ever had the clap, been raped, had a penile reduction, a boob job, a mastectomy, nose job, lap band, Viagra perscription, etc will be fighting to keep that information private.

So enjoy your crusade to open med records up to inspection I'll be watching with popcorn.